CHAPTER FIVE

THE SOURCES FOR AETIUS: THEODORET

1. The man and his work 272 2. The evidence on Aetius 273 3. Theodoret's method 276 (a) Apologetics: the importance of the lhacprov(a 276 (b) Paraphrase: adaptation of the doxai 278 (c) Abridgement and selectivity 282 4. The interpretative crux: how much new material is furnished? 284 5. Some conclusions on Theodoret's evidence 289

1. The man and his work

The third and last of the sources for the reconstruction of Aetius is Theodoret (393- c. 460), bishop of Cyrrhus in Northern Syria from 423 until his death.1 In his apologetic work 'EAAllVtKOW 8epmtEU't­ tK"i17ta811J.la'trov2 or Curatio affectionum Graecarum (henceforth GAG) he makes considerable use of our compendium. Indeed, as was discussed earlier, we are wholly indebted to Theodoret for our knowledge that Aetius was its author.3 The date at which he wrote this work cannot be determined with precision. A clue is provided by its christological terminology which suggests a date early in his career, before the great controversies that begin with the Council of Ephesus in 431. 4 The further hypothesis has been put forward that it is an ceuvre de jeunesse, dating from the period be­ fore the elevation to the bishopric, but the evidence is not wholly

1 A recent survey of his life and literary remains in Azema ( 1991). 2 The full title according to Pref 16 is 'EAAf\VtK&v 9epaneuttK1, na9rt!lCitrov f\ EUGospel from Hellenic Philosophy), by which, as Azema (1991) 424 points out, Theodoret wishes to indicate both the nega­ tive and the positive aspect of his apologetic. 3 See above Ch. 2, p. 77, where the three relevant texts are cited in full. On the discovery and use made ofT's evidence by Diels and his predecessors, cf. Ch. 1, §4, where we note that the first scholars to recognize the value of T's evidence were Patrizi and Mercuriale. 4 Richard ( 1936). THEODORET 273 conclusive.5 Theodoret received his not inconsiderable, but prim­ arily rhetorical rather than philosophical, education in Antioch or its environs.6 It is interesting, but perhaps no more than coin­ cidental, that he gained access to Aetius' treatise at almost exactly the same time that Stobaeus used it for his anthology 1500 kilo­ meters away in Macedonia. Theodoret's treatise is the last of the great apologetic works written by the Church Fathers in defence of the Christian faith against the background of and with reference to Hellenic literary and philosophical culture. It is the last writing that takes paganism seriously as a threat to Christian thought, in contrast to Cyril's Contra Julianum, which is little more than a protracted piece of polemic. In a literal sense, too, this work is a culmination, for it has absorbed a vast amount of material from its predecessors, most notably the Stromateis of Clement and the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius. 7 Incontestably Theodoret's erudition is largely deriva­ tive, i.e. based on knowledge taken at second hand. Nevertheless this is not a characteristic of his work that we wish to emphasize. As we have seen, one of Theodoret's main sources, Eusebius, had drawn extensively on P in his apologetic collection of texts. Al­ most all the placita material that Theodoret needed thus lay ready to hand in a conveniently abridged form. 8 Instead he chose to turn to the original work, not realizing how much assistance he would render later scholars to whom such access has been denied.

2. The evidence on Aetius In its entirety the work consists of 12 books, but all the doxo­ graphical material is found in the first half, in which the more

5 Canivet (1958a) 17-21, (l958b) 1.28-31, arguing for a date between 419 and 423 on the basis of references to current persecutions in the Persian emjire during this period. Canivet (1958a) 308 writes: 'A Antioche, il a certainement appris Ia rhetorique, mais aucun indice ne permet de supposer qu'il ait pu y suivre des cours de philosophie'. We will grant the primacy of rhetoric in his educ­ ation, but, as we shall note below, his use of a handbook such as A is an indication of some preliminary philosophical schooling. 7 Thoroughly investigated in the studies of Roos (1886), Raeder (1900), Canivet ( 1958a). The last study leans heavily on the earlier two. 8 See above Ch. 3, §4. We say 'almost' because Eusebius concentrates on books I & II, and quotes very little from book IV on psychology; see the list above on p. 13lff.